This week we discuss the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Beaton v. SpeedyPC Software, which weighed in on the propriety of certifying a class narrower than the definition proposed in the complaint and upon claims not specifically identified in the complaint. We also briefly look at eight other appellate decisions from the past two weeks that include: (i) holding that the misuse defense under Indiana’s Products Liability Act can be a complete defense; (ii) a party’s complete about-face can be a basis for surprise to obtain relief from a judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(1); (iii) multi-year assertion that a defendant is subject to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act and numerous delays to await a medical review panel determination can be sufficient to estop a plaintiff from arguing that the defendant is not subject to the Medical Malpractice Act; (iv) contracts attached to complaints are admissible as evidence at trial even if not specifically identified in final exhibits list; (v) a claim for unjust enrichment can be made even if the benefits are provided by a third-party; (vi) courts may commit reversible error when elevating formality over substantial justice with overly rigid application of procedure at trial; (vii) illustrating considerations in applying the doctrines of apparent authority and apparent agency; and (viii) citations to the record along with other citations count toward the word limit in federal appellate filings despite no rule specifically stating that citations are included in the word count.

Today’s discussion focuses on a narrow issue of appellate practice on which the Indiana Court of Appeals has now spoken strongly: “Even if our trial and appellate rules do not expressly forbid the simultaneous filings of motions to correct error and notices of appeal by one party—or the filing of a notice of appeal before a motion to correct error has been ruled on or deemed denied—we believe it is inadvisable to do so.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana answers a case of first impression: whether "wages" due under the Indiana Wage Payment Act post-termination is the gross wages due to the employee or the net wages after tax deductions.

This week we discuss the recent Court of Appeals of Indiana case Hudgins v. Bemish as a catalyst to discuss when an employer may be held liable for an employee using a work truck to drive home. We also look at the doctrines of negligent hiring and negligent entrustment.

A discussion of the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in YTC Dream Homes, Inc. v. DirectBuy, Inc. discussing the propriety of pro hac vice admission and also proposing an amendment I'd like to see to Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A) allowing interlocutory appeals of right for decisions denying/granting pro hac admission and for decisions granting or denying disqualification of an attorney.

Although it is extremely rare, there are cases in which arguments on appeal are so tremendously devoid of merit so as to subject their advocates to sanctions for payment of opposition attorney fees for frivolity. This post discusses one of these rare cases.

What happens when the trial court enters a final judgment that isn't really final because the trial court has not actually decided every issue? Earlier this month, Chief Judge Wood for the Seventh Circuit indicated that an appellate court has no choice but to remand the case due to a lack of appellate jurisdiction. Today, the Court of Appeals of Indiana issue a decision that takes a different approach–the approach taken by the Second Circuit in a case mirroring the issue addressed by Chief Judge Wood: decide the merits of the appeal and remand for further proceedings on the overlooked issue.

This discussion examines a host of cases from the Seventh Circuit and Indiana Court of Appeals from the past week and focuses on a case from Indiana examining whether a subsequent order labeling a prior order as a "final judgment" is a final judgment in accordance with Rule 54 for purposes of appeal.

Today's discussion is a follow up to a prior discussion of the case Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc. which found its way to the Indiana Supreme Court. The court held that the Fraudulent Concealment Statute acts to toll claims for wrongful death thereby permitting a full two-year period to file a claim after learning of the wrongful act as opposed to requiring a reasonable time to file a claim after discovery of the concealment. The opinion is also an example of a masterfully well-written decision that blends sound legal reasoning with florid prose making for an enjoyable read.

This installment of the Hoosier Litigation Blog focuses on the procedures for reviewing challenging an interlocutory order before the trial court. It also looks at the recent changes to Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) after a 2008 amendment removing the application to only final judgments and how it is now applicable to interlocutory orders and the resulting impact that has on T.R. 60(B) caselaw.

This installment looks at the decision from the Seventh Circuit this week that has drawn a great deal more attention for the tone directed at the frivolous nature of the appeal than the substance of the decision. In our third post of the day, we look at the decision in Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Lewis, described by the folks at Above the Law as a "benchslap" by Judge Posner.

This week we look at the difference between appeals from interlocutory orders and final judgments. We also look specifically at an Indiana Court of Appeals decision this week – Kindred v. Townsend – that addressed the scope of when a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction can be taken up on appeal as a matter of right.

This week's discussion returns to interpretation of the AIA Standard Construction Contract through a rehearing on the case Allen County Public Library v. Shambaugh & Son, L.P. The post also looks at a very meaningful development in the ability to cite unpublished cases to Indiana courts.

This week we look primarily at interlocutory appeals of class certification decisions under Rule 23(f) through the Seventh Circuit case Driver v. AppleIllinois, LLC authored by Judge Richard Posner. We also take a brief look at another Posner decision in Parko v. Shell Oil Co. addressing certification issues on predominance and numerosity grounds.

This week we talk about the Indiana Supreme Court decision Miller v. Dobbs that held for purposes of the statute of limitations, that a medical malpractice action is filed with the Department of Insurance when the complaint is filed regardless of when the filing and service fees are paid. This post also goes into great depth to analyze what this decision shows us about the current composition of the Indiana Supreme Court and takes a look at the possible impact of this case upon Moryl v. Ransome with rehearing still pending before the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Pavlack Law scored a major victory for two of our clients yesterday in the Indiana Court of Appeals. The decision in Urbina v. A Bond of Life Adoptions, LLC was not only a phenomenal decision due to its thoughtfulness and wisdom but because it now means that the Urbinas will be able to progress their case forward after having been erroneously dismissed.